Attachment to Style

[cross]

In this post i will outline some observations regarding the teaching of self defense techniques and how stylistic attachment can have a negative effect on productivity. This topic shares some parallels with Bushido_man96's "Martial Arts "Monogamy"" article.

When a person begins martial arts it can be for any number of reasons, but at some stage along the line self defense skills comes into the equation. Its at this point that the practitioner's attachment to their style of choice begins to play a role in the extent and practicality of self defense techniques/concepts that are trained and taught.

Take for example a person who begins training in , after a certain amount of training they begin to question how they would deal with basic strikes in a self defense situation. Now this can be approached from 2 completely different angles:

1. What is the most logical and efficient way that i can defend against strikes utilising movements and tactics that are pre-existing in all humans?

or

2. What is the way that says i should deal with strikes?

If you approach it from angle 1, you would research, test and seek out the most efficient means of dealing with strikes and then train to maximize your ability to perform such movements. Also taking note of the most common types of strikes you would be likely to face in a self defence encounter and ensuring that the defenses are practiced against these techniques.

If you approach it from angle 2, you may look through the syllabus of your style and see what "blocking" techniques they have to offer. From here you try to apply these techniques against strikes, and to find the strikes to use you go back to your syllabus and look at the strikes taught within your style. Then you train and train trying to make this work even if in doing so you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and even if your styles main focus isnt based on striking.

So why do people continue to train this way? (it still happens judging by alot of discussion here, in other forums, video footage, schools in my area etc). If the practitioner didnt try to make their style fit to every situation and use the existing techniques then they would have to admit that they didnt have an answer, or that their style was somehow lacking and that their "master" status or belt didnt mean has much has they first thought.

Practitioners to this day continue to completely dismiss areas such has groundfighting and weapons(not the kind that were used by farmers in feudal japan) just because it wasnt a part of their original style.

Having an attachment to style can be extremely detrimental to your training and progression. Being able to look outside the box, take things that work and practicing them will serve you far better than trying to force something that wasnt ment to be.

[bushido_man96]

I think that at times, the way you describe "forcing" something is much the way that some others would refer to as "training" something. It is true that there are some techniques done in the Martial Arts that are not reflexively natural. However, it does not mean that they can't become valuable when trained to use them.

I see what you are saying with the square peg/round hole analogy, and it makes sense to me. In fact, I think that it is a good point at times. However, there are some benefits that come from training beyond just the reflexive actions.

Now, I do feel that limiting yourself to something that is stylized in and failing to explore the other options that are out there, can be detrimental to one's training. Branching out, and experimenting to see what works is important.

[gzk]

Option 2 is the safer-feeling option because you're performing techniques that your instructor and training partners can help you work on. Putting option 1 into practise may involve finding and becoming acclimatized to another school, or going totally lone-wolf. It also requires a certain amount of training (as you allude to) and understanding of applied biomechanics, and the dynamics of a fight. Not everyone can do that. Everyone should, if they can, though.

[cross]

I think that at times, the way you describe "forcing" something is much the way that some others would refer to as "training" something. It is true that there are some techniques done in the Martial Arts that are not reflexively natural. However, it does not mean that they can't become valuable when trained to use them.

I see what you are saying with the square peg/round hole analogy, and it makes sense to me. In fact, I think that it is a good point at times. However, there are some benefits that come from training beyond just the reflexive actions.

Now, I do feel that limiting yourself to something that is stylized in and failing to explore the other options that are out there, can be detrimental to one's training. Branching out, and experimenting to see what works is important.

Dont get me wrong, im not suggesting that if something doesnt work after 5 seconds of trying it then you should forget it. I agree with you in that some techniques that require a fair amount of training will be very beneficial and worth the effort.

However my point is that instead of jumping straight into your styles answer to a certain question, look at a variety of options FIRST, and then spend the time training the most logical option.

[bushido_man96]

I see your point, cross.

[Patrick]

Hello,

We removed a post in error from this thread. It is quoted below. I apologize for the confusion. Thanks.

In this post i will outline some observations regarding the teaching of self defense techniques and how stylistic attachment can have a negative effect on productivity. This topic shares some parallels with Bushido_man96's "Martial Arts "Monogamy"" article.

When a person begins martial arts it can be for any number of reasons, but at some stage along the line self defense skills comes into the equation. Its at this point that the practitioner's attachment to their style of choice begins to play a role in the extent and practicality of self defense techniques/concepts that are trained and taught.

Take for example a person who begins training in , after a certain amount of training they begin to question how they would deal with basic strikes in a self defense situation. Now this can be approached from 2 completely different angles:

1. What is the most logical and efficient way that i can defend against strikes utilising movements and tactics that are pre-existing in all humans?

or

2. What is the way that says i should deal with strikes?

If you approach it from angle 1, you would research, test and seek out the most efficient means of dealing with strikes and then train to maximize your ability to perform such movements. Also taking note of the most common types of strikes you would be likely to face in a self defence encounter and ensuring that the defenses are practiced against these techniques.

If you approach it from angle 2, you may look through the syllabus of your style and see what "blocking" techniques they have to offer. From here you try to apply these techniques against strikes, and to find the strikes to use you go back to your syllabus and look at the strikes taught within your style. Then you train and train trying to make this work even if in doing so you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and even if your styles main focus isnt based on striking.

So why do people continue to train this way? (it still happens judging by alot of discussion here, in other forums, video footage, schools in my area etc). If the practitioner didnt try to make their style fit to every situation and use the existing techniques then they would have to admit that they didnt have an answer, or that their style was somehow lacking and that their "master" status or belt didnt mean has much has they first thought.

Practitioners to this day continue to completely dismiss areas such has groundfighting and weapons(not the kind that were used by farmers in feudal japan) just because it wasnt a part of their original style.

Having an attachment to style can be extremely detrimental to your training and progression. Being able to look outside the box, take things that work and practicing them will serve you far better than trying to force something that wasnt ment to be.

see, ur assuming that traditional schools have martial arts that wont work well; if they dont work, they have been handed down wrong; Martial Arts work. Martial arts that dont work were passed to students that didnt train how they needed to, and paid attention to stuff that wasnt important.

something that is wrong with the way you posted ur topic is that you cannot define what is a "natural response" to agression(punch, kick, etc). (Yi Quan is the ONLY Martial art I've seen that trains for natural response of the body- it doesnt have forms)

if what you say is correct, then a boxer is trying to fit his fist style to whatever may arise for him, using footwork that is trained, punches that are trained, combinations that are trained,etc.

And training for groundfighting as any other martial art would be the wrong way for being prepared to defend urself.

for example, Karate and kung fu traditionally used to teach about groundfighting AND using weapons that were advanced at the time. however, Samurai did teach against using rifles because they didnt see the "art"(if u may) in killing someone just by firing a gun, which u dont have to have much practice in after u learn how to take aim well. --and really, if everyone used guns, and today, a lot of people do, what point is there to learning martial arts??--

As to groundfighting, for self defense reasons, most teachers didnt teach as part of their MA because they thought that being on the ground for long periods with an attacker meant that someone would end the fight for either one of them; others thought that getting out of the ground position was just common sense and not something to take time explaining.

gun control is not a martial art- knowing about guns and how to take aim is not part of a curriculum because someone who doesnt know anything, or doesnt have any strength in particular can in fact shoot a gun and kill the World's strongest.

There are BAD schools that teach their version of "traditional martial arts" and the students suck because they are taught in a wrong way. Others forgot about stuff that should have been taught.

But dont tell me that EVERY traditional martial art is defective and forces stuff too much because it isnt so; it just didnt work for YOU.

[cross]

see, ur assuming that traditional schools have martial arts that wont work well; if they dont work, they have been handed down wrong; Martial Arts work. Martial arts that dont work were passed to students that didnt train how they needed to, and paid attention to stuff that wasnt important.

If the art has been continually passed down without any progression or inclusion of tactics to deal with modern threats and most likely attacks to be faced, then it will be outdated and lack a certain level of practicality, even if it did work when in the time period it was designed for.

something that is wrong with the way you posted ur topic is that you cannot define what is a "natural response" to agression(punch, kick, etc). (Yi Quan is the ONLY Martial art I've seen that trains for natural response of the body- it doesnt have forms)

The "natural response" i refer to is any humans reaction to a surprise situation, the flinch or "oh crap" moment that occurs when a stimulus is introduced 2 quickly to be processed by the person.

if what you say is correct, then a boxer is trying to fit his fist style to whatever may arise for him, using footwork that is trained, punches that are trained, combinations that are trained,etc.

This brings up an interesting point. Have you even witnessed 2 pro boxers start fighting at a press conference or weigh in? All the years spent training go out the window and it looks like 2 school kids fighting. The different is that now the fight is real, and they are unprepared for this reality.

[bushido_man96]

That is an interesting point, cross. I remember some heavyweights that got into it at a weigh-in once, and I can't remember who it was. It may have been Tyson/Lewis, but I can't remember for sure. There were no "jabs" thrown, though. There was a wind-up punch, and then a crowd of people covered them.

[AikiGuy]

Cross, you have some very good points and everyone should try different styles to be well rounded. However Gzk and Bushido have some good counter points to some (not all) of what you said. I will add my own point which is not really a disagreement but more of an answer/explanation to your question of why people look first to their chosen style for answers.

The reason is because it is easier. Most people join a dojo because there is much knowledge collected in one place so it is a quicker way to find most answers. It's like going to a tiny local library one block away to research a topic instead of hitting all of the huge county libraries that are all several miles away. Of course the county options will give more answers to some questions, but is today's question worth spending 10 times more effort and time to possibly get 2 or 3 more options? It's the same reason I buy expensive gas from the place in my neighborhood when I know of at least 3 places that have it for 20 to 30 cents less per gallon. It's just more convenient and I am way too busy to drive 30 minutes to save 5 dollars on a tank of gas.

So back to MA training. Most people, including me, think that less knowledge that is easy to get is better than lots of knowledge that is difficult to get since they may never get it or have to give up other things (time, money, extra training, etc) to get it. It all comes down to balancing your life and all of its endeavors, not just MA.

Of course, your answer is still the best way to go if you want to expand your knowledge. It's just impractical for anyone other than an avid tournament competitor or professional fighter.

Sorry if I am so long winded today.

[TraditionalDan]

It is true that there are some techniques done in the Martial Arts that are not reflexively natural.

Of course, but there are many techiques that are, I know you are aware of this.

But then again, even the most unnatural of techniques can feel natural if trained enough.